Catholic Raised, family later turned into Christianity(Now non-Denominational.) Lead Singer of the Chior in a Southern Baptist Church, but not well versed enough to get into a biblical dispute.

Thinking back......

The Book of Revelation reveals the world coming to an end, but in the Midst of all this, there will be a Rapture.

I'm a Skeptic, and tend to think that the bible has been rewritten w/o accuracy of the original scripts/Documents. At the Same time, I believe the theories written in the bible to be more realistic (to what I believe)than any other religious read.

The New Testament Written: 50-100 AD // Earliest Copy Around 130 AD // Time span between Original and Copy Less than 100 years // Number of copies 5,600+ // Accuracy of copies (Do they all agree and say the same thing? ) 99.5%

In total, there are over 24,000 copies of the New Testament alone.

Still quesiton the accuracy?

The Bible cannot be claimed to be accurate in ANY sense of the word. It's historical references are woefully poorly (and often incorrectly)documented with very little accuracy. There is no historical evidence that any of the proclaimed events listed even occurred.

What you are referring to is the textual variations of known printed copies. There are no originals with which to compare ANY of the books of the New Testament, so they cannot be evaluated on the basis of "accuracy" to an original text. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudo-biographical, in other words, NOT written by the proclaimed authors. There are multiple copies of the New Testament books that have known obvious changes to the wording, added passages and omissions. Scholars have known of these variations for years. This is not something new. This may not be entirely done out of simple malice or ignorance. Any translated work loses something in the very act of translating, especially multiple translations over many years. If you doubt this, just how many different versions of the current Bible are there? How many different denominations use these different books to support their own individual doctrines which are (of course) "biblically accurate"?

Catholic Raised, family later turned into Christianity(Now non-Denominational.) Lead Singer of the Chior in a Southern Baptist Church, but not well versed enough to get into a biblical dispute.

Thinking back......

The Book of Revelation reveals the world coming to an end, but in the Midst of all this, there will be a Rapture.

I'm a Skeptic, and tend to think that the bible has been rewritten w/o accuracy of the original scripts/Documents. At the Same time, I believe the theories written in the bible to be more realistic (to what I believe)than any other religious read.

The New Testament Written: 50-100 AD // Earliest Copy Around 130 AD // Time span between Original and Copy Less than 100 years // Number of copies 5,600+ // Accuracy of copies (Do they all agree and say the same thing? ) 99.5%

In total, there are over 24,000 copies of the New Testament alone.

Still quesiton the accuracy?

The Bible cannot be claimed to be accurate in ANY sense of the word. It's historical references are woefully poorly (and often incorrectly)documented with very little accuracy. There is no historical evidence that any of the proclaimed events listed even occurred.

What you are referring to is the textual variations of known printed copies. There are no originals with which to compare ANY of the books of the New Testament, so they cannot be evaluated on the basis of "accuracy" to an original text. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudo-biographical, in other words, NOT written by the proclaimed authors. There are multiple copies of the New Testament books that have known obvious changes to the wording, added passages and omissions. Scholars have known of these variations for years. This is not something new. This may not be entirely done out of simple malice or ignorance. Any translated work loses something in the very act of translating, especially multiple translations over many years. If you doubt this, just how many different versions of the current Bible are there? How many different denominations use these different books to support their own individual doctrines which are (of course) "biblically accurate"?

Thats fine. Based on your reasoning, no historical book ever written can be deemed as believable if it wasn't the original copy. You obviously did not read what I wrote. I was not talking about originals. I said TIME BETWEEN ORIGINAL AND COPY. The accuracy of the copies agreeing with each other, not the originals. Also, I compared it to other books that scholars deem as reliable. All of those other books no originals exist either. But you probably take was Aristotle says to heart, but not what God says?

You go into different versions of the bible? You mean different translations.

Please indulge me with these historical events that are false and never occurred. I could give you hundreds on archaelogical findings that supports what the bible says. It would'nt matter. People don't want to believe the bible because of it's implications. In the end we'll see who's right.

My response was based upon your very loose definition and use of the word "accuracy". The Bible has been translated, re-translated, interpreted and finally transmogrified in it's current condition and is STILL being modified to this day. Since there are many modern "interpretations" and they do not agree with one another, I believe that means it lacks accuracy in the sense that the words and meanings have changed over time and through multiple languages. In fact that there are many differences in the oldest manuscripts in comparison to the current multiple translations which shows that there have been omissions, additions and outright changes. Each denomination chooses a particular "interpretation" to support it's own peculiar christian ideology and then chooses which portions of that book to adhere to and which to ignore.

You can see these variations in the stories for yourself. The four Gospels all allegedly tell the story of a single event. None of which agree with one another. Since an action, in this example the death and resurrection of Jesus, can only have occurred one way, only one can be the truth the others by definition are NOT true.

You are correct in that there are many translated copies of the New Testament. Since for the first fifteen hundred years or so, christian theocracy reigned in Europe. Government backing does wonders for the printing process. Which also makes sense when you consider the christian church spent a great deal of time, over the past two thousand years, destroying and suppressing books of opposing views. In fact, in some cases wiping out whole libraries. Not to mention killing quite a few people in the process.

There is no evidence that any of the events listed within the New Testament actually occurred. Please show the evidence for any of these "archeological findings" that so easily evicerates my argument. There is no evidence that the Bible is inspired, or the Koran, or the Vedes etc... You may believe this, but belief does not make it so.

I responded to the claim of accuracy, not "believability". I firmly believe it to be fiction.

My response was based upon your very loose definition and use of the word "accuracy". The Bible has been translated, re-translated, interpreted and finally transmogrified in it's current condition and is STILL being modified to this day. Since there are many modern "interpretations" and they do not agree with one another, I believe that means it lacks accuracy in the sense that the words and meanings have changed over time and through multiple languages. In fact that there are many differences in the oldest manuscripts in comparison to the current multiple translations which shows that there have been omissions, additions and outright changes. Each denomination chooses a particular "interpretation" to support it's own peculiar christian ideology and then chooses which portions of that book to adhere to and which to ignore.

You can see these variations in the stories for yourself. The four Gospels all allegedly tell the story of a single event. None of which agree with one another. Since an action, in this example the death and resurrection of Jesus, can only have occurred one way, only one can be the truth the others by definition are NOT true.

You are correct in that there are many translated copies of the New Testament. Since for the first fifteen hundred years or so, christian theocracy reigned in Europe. Government backing does wonders for the printing process. Which also makes sense when you consider the christian church spent a great deal of time, over the past two thousand years, destroying and suppressing books of opposing views. In fact, in some cases wiping out whole libraries. Not to mention killing quite a few people in the process.

There is no evidence that any of the events listed within the New Testament actually occurred. Please show the evidence for any of these "archeological findings" that so easily evicerates my argument. There is no evidence that the Bible is inspired, or the Koran, or the Vedes etc... You may believe this, but belief does not make it so.

I responded to the claim of accuracy, not "believability". I firmly believe it to be fiction.

I can see your point, the only problem is my view has the evidence, yours does not. If the bible has been changed over the years, where are these manuscripts that so differ? ( recall that 99.5%) The reason there are different interpretations is because the OT was written in Hebrew, a language with no vowels, and the NT was written in Greek and Aramaic. So yes there are going to be different translations or interpretaions of what it says, but that doesn't mean we write off the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts as "inaccurate" because of it. I think that is just absurd. Of course that is my opinion. Someone could take our conversation, and translate it into Portugese, and you will have different versions of our conversation. Does that make our conversation inaccurate?

How do you explain the non-denomination Christians like myself who have several different translations that we use? How you do explain our "hidden agenda?"

You have a car accident. You have four different witnesses. Each witness will give you a slightly different story of what happened. Come on you know this. You are mistaken that the Gospels don't agree with each other. They all say Jesus died. They all say he resurrected. Where are the contradictions? A contradiction is the direct opposite of a statement. Use the same reason you use everyday in LE. If dying on a cross and being resurrected was a crime, based on the four gospels and what you deem as contradictions in the story, what do you think. Guilty or Innocent? Be honest. Better yet, re-read them.

Also, are you attempting to discredit the validity of the bible based on the sins of Christians? Yes, I said sins. God did not approve. I will never be ashamed for Jesus based on what some fool has done in the past!

You have the burden of proof here. Not me. If I'm wrong, then oh well we cease to exist right? But if you're wrong...what then? I was merely offering some hope to a person who claimed to be a sceptic. You called out my post. I've been down this road before. It leads to nowhere. Listing archaeological finds would not change anything. Even if there were none, I would still believe. Because I have this one thing..called faith. Laugh all you want. Mock me. Persecute me. It only makes me go HARDER!

My gift is my curse. I can never back down from defending my faith! There is no fruit in this

My response was based upon your very loose definition and use of the word "accuracy". The Bible has been translated, re-translated, interpreted and finally transmogrified in it's current condition and is STILL being modified to this day. Since there are many modern "interpretations" and they do not agree with one another, I believe that means it lacks accuracy in the sense that the words and meanings have changed over time and through multiple languages. In fact that there are many differences in the oldest manuscripts in comparison to the current multiple translations which shows that there have been omissions, additions and outright changes. Each denomination chooses a particular "interpretation" to support it's own peculiar christian ideology and then chooses which portions of that book to adhere to and which to ignore.

You can see these variations in the stories for yourself. The four Gospels all allegedly tell the story of a single event. None of which agree with one another. Since an action, in this example the death and resurrection of Jesus, can only have occurred one way, only one can be the truth the others by definition are NOT true.

You are correct in that there are many translated copies of the New Testament. Since for the first fifteen hundred years or so, christian theocracy reigned in Europe. Government backing does wonders for the printing process. Which also makes sense when you consider the christian church spent a great deal of time, over the past two thousand years, destroying and suppressing books of opposing views. In fact, in some cases wiping out whole libraries. Not to mention killing quite a few people in the process.

There is no evidence that any of the events listed within the New Testament actually occurred. Please show the evidence for any of these "archeological findings" that so easily evicerates my argument. There is no evidence that the Bible is inspired, or the Koran, or the Vedes etc... You may believe this, but belief does not make it so.

I responded to the claim of accuracy, not "believability". I firmly believe it to be fiction.

I can see your point, the only problem is my view has the evidence, yours does not. If the bible has been changed over the years, where are these manuscripts that so differ? ( recall that 99.5%) The reason there are different interpretations is because the OT was written in Hebrew, a language with no vowels, and the NT was written in Greek and Aramaic. So yes there are going to be different translations or interpretaions of what it says, but that doesn't mean we write off the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic texts as "inaccurate" because of it. I think that is just absurd. Of course that is my opinion. Someone could take our conversation, and translate it into Portugese, and you will have different versions of our conversation. Does that make our conversation inaccurate?

How do you explain the non-denomination Christians like myself who have several different translations that we use? How you do explain our "hidden agenda?"

You have a car accident. You have four different witnesses. Each witness will give you a slightly different story of what happened. Come on you know this. You are mistaken that the Gospels don't agree with each other. They all say Jesus died. They all say he resurrected. Where are the contradictions? A contradiction is the direct opposite of a statement. Use the same reason you use everyday in LE. If dying on a cross and being resurrected was a crime, based on the four gospels and what you deem as contradictions in the story, what do you think. Guilty or Innocent? Be honest. Better yet, re-read them.

Also, are you attempting to discredit the validity of the bible based on the sins of Christians? Yes, I said sins. God did not approve. I will never be ashamed for Jesus based on what some fool has done in the past!

You have the burden of proof here. Not me. If I'm wrong, then oh well we cease to exist right? But if you're wrong...what then? I was merely offering some hope to a person who claimed to be a sceptic. You called out my post. I've been down this road before. It leads to nowhere. Listing archaeological finds would not change anything. Even if there were none, I would still believe. Because I have this one thing..called faith. Laugh all you want. Mock me. Persecute me. It only makes me go HARDER!

My gift is my curse. I can never back down from defending my faith! There is no fruit in this

Amen brother!!!!

Just to add the reason the Bible is translated and retranslated is so that others in different countries may come to the Lord. The Bible is still accurate. I can see what your saying about the different Bibles that have been coming out the last couple decades. There are so many, but the main goal is to make the scriptures easier to understand and follow. Myself I grew up on the KJV, now I read a couple different translations which makes it easier for me to understand what is being said. The all say the same thing but in different wording. They all teach the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

No one picks out what to follow and what not to follow. We all follow the Bible, word for word. We don't go in and take out what we should believe and take out what we don't believe. That is just wrong.

You wouldn't go in there for a million bucks...A Cop does it for less...A Reserve does it for free....

Tell me, which of the four accounts are accurate? Matthew, Mark, Luke or John? Who carried the cross Jesus was crucified onto? Simon of Cyrene? (Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26). Or Jesus himself? (John 19:17) When did this crucifixion take place? 9am? (Mark 15:25) Or 12pm? (John 19:14-15) Did Jesus drink while on the cross? Matthew and John say yes, Mark says no. When Jesus was entombed after his crucifixion, who visited his tomb the next morning? Mary Magdalene by herself? (John 20:1) Mary Magdalene and the other Mary? (Matthew 28:1). Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome? (Mark 16:1) Or, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women? (Luke 24:10). When you decide this, at what time of the morning did they do this? At the rising of the sun? (Mark 16:2) Or when it was dark? (John 20:1) When you decide that, was the tomb open when she/they got there? (Luke 24:2) Or was it closed? (Matthew 28:1-2) When you figure that out, who did she/they see at the tomb? An angel? (Matthew 28:2). A young man? (mark 16:5). Two men? (Luke 24:4) Or two angels? (John 20-11-12). When you have decided that, where he/they inside the tomb? (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12). Or was/were he/they outside the tomb? (Matthew 28:2). When you get this far, tell me were he/they standing? (Luke 24:4) Or sitting? (Matthew 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12).

This appears to be much more than "slight differences". It would seem to me that, as important as the death and resurrection are to chrisitanity, they would have at least gotten this right. If this were a court case and this "testimony" was given by these unidentified people, under assumed names, who did not witness the incident, 130 years after the fact and described the same event with this much convolution it would be laughed out of the city.

The appeal to your version of Pascal's Wager is only effective if both parties agree on the god/religion to adhere to. I have no idea what you mean by your use of the phrase "hidden agenda". I do not care how many translations of the Bible you use/read anymore than I care how many Dr. Seuess books you've read.

I do not have the burden of proof, since I am not making an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. By your argument, I could say that there is an invisible dragon that circles the globe and reads your thoughts and you cannot prove otherwise. This does not make it true or even plausible however. There is not one shred of evidence to support your position. Undeterred by this, you say you will believe it regardless because you have "faith". This is the same ethereal faith that every other believer of every other religion possesses in their own god or gods. Faith is not your curse. Your curse is lack of reason.

Ok. If you want evidence you need to define what evidence is to you so I know what you want. If you want "proof" sorry you ain't gonna get it. No matter what you believe you have to apply some element of faith to support that belief.

Now, onto your questions. But before I begin...especially since you are in LE, when did you get the premise that for something to be true, EVERY detail had to be exactly the same in every eye witness account?

1. Remember these were four different people writting the gospels. Four different eye witnesses, so keep it in that context. Jesus carried his own cross for some distance. After he grew tired and weary, the roman soldiers commanded Simon of Cyrene to carry his cross for him. John 19:17 states that he went out carrying his own cross to the place of the skull. Matthew 27:31,32 tells us that he was led out to be crucified and that it was only as they were going out to Golgotha that Simon was forced to carry the cross.Mark 15:20,21 agrees with Matthew and gives us the additional information that Jesus started out from inside the palace (Praetorium). As Simon was on his way in from the country, it is clear that he was passing by in the street. This implies that Jesus carried his cross for some distance, from the palace into the street. Weak from his floggings and torture, it is likely that he either collapsed under the weight of the cross or was going very slowly. In any case, the soldiers forced Simon to carry the cross for him. Luke 23:26 is in agreement, stating that Simon was seized as they led Jesus away.

2. Mark used the Jewish timekeeping system, John used the Roman time keeping system. Roman time went from midnight to midnight, just like us. But Jewish time went from 6pm to 6pm. Two different time scales, two different hours of the day. If you study the scriptures you will understand that John was written to more of a Roman audience. Thus it is logical that he would use their time system.

A bomb goes off in downtown Kansas City at 3pm. (sorry Kansas Cityans) What time did it go off on the West coast? On the East coast? You gotta keep the scriptures is context man!

3. These are two different times when Jesus was offered a drink. Matthew 27:34 says it was wine mixed with gall which he refused. This was before darkness fell over the land (keep reading past v.34). Mark 15:23 says wine mixed with myrrh which he refused. This was also before darkness fell over the land (keep reading past v. 23). It is logical that both myrrh and gall were mixed with the vinegar. These two verses do not contradict each other. If you make an alcoholic beverage lets say some citrus soda, jack daniels and dry gin. Would it be a false statement for one to say "It's citrus soda mixed with Jack Daniels" and one to say "It's citrus soda mixed with dry gin" ??? No, both statements would be true. The third account in John 19:29-30 says that Jesus received the sour wine (which was meant it was cheap) and immediately said "It is finished" and died. A much different account than the other two because they were different occasions. The implications of this is that Jesus would not accept any drink that had an opiate pain killer mixed in it. He wanted to bear the full pain.

As the saying goes........... It loses in the translation. As for the accounts, they are told from the perspective of Matthew, Mark Luke and John, all present during the events prior to the crucifixion. Were the accounts translated incorrectly or like many of our witness interviews, each witness saw the exact same event a little different from the other? I am far from being a Biblical scholar and I certainly do not profess myself to be. I will however take the teachings and the accounts in the Bible on faith and say that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Myself, I prefer the King James version to other versions of the same. As for the "End of the world"............ I will be as ready as anyone.

4. With all the scriptures about who was there at the tomb, which one of these contradicts the other? By the way John 20:1 does not say Mary was by herself. Each scripture enlightens us more to who was there, but which contradicts what another one says?

5. I've already established that Mark and John were using two different time-keeping systems. Next.

6. The women started out early in the morning while it was still dark, but the sun was rising. Since we are talking about two different accounts, its not a far stretch to assume that John may have been referring to when the women left, and mark when they arrived. The gospels were not written to be chronological history, they have a purpose beyond that.

7-8. I'm getting shorter because this is almost repetitive. Again none of these scriptures contradict each other as far as who was there at the tomb. Each one gives a different perspective so when you put them all together you have a collective account of what happened. These are evidence of independent accounts. I can sit one second, and stand up the next. So can they.

I really hope this gives you the answers you are looking for, although I know you are not looking for answers but rather to ridicule me. If you study the scriptures insteading of just reading them you will find the answers yourself.

In terms of hidden agenda, you stated that denominations pick and choose which version best suits them and their doctrine. Well what about someone who is only interested in living out the word for what it really says, who has multiple versions and doesn't pick and choose. So that's what I meant about that.

If you think my claims are extraordinary, well that is your opinion. As opposed to the universe randomly exploding from nothing and no purpose into a system that is screaming for purpose? Well if you say so.

You could say that invisible dragons exist (I'm surprised no flying spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns ) . The difference would be I have a historical document that says what I believe, not to mention his work in my life and others, his creation, and how he has changed me. On the other hand you pulled that out of your butt. Like I said, no matter what you believe, you have to apply some element of faith to it.

Nobody lacks faith. We all have faith in something. Faith is a firm belief in something that cannot be proven. If you are an atheist you have faith in atheistic things. You cannot "prove" any of it either. You cannot prove to me that what I believe in is a lie. All you can do is attack my intelligence, yet you believe in things you cannot see or cannot prove daily. Want some examples? Logic, mathmatics, ethics. These cannot be proven by science, yet you accept them with no problem.

Lastly, the gift and curse I was speaking of is my love to argue and debate. You attack my reason. Thats fine. As I said before, laugh at me, mock me, call me stupid, lame, dumb, unreasonable. I don't care. I've examined the evidence, on both sides. I've compared and contrasted. I've studied. I've meditated on it. And I've come to accept God. If that's not using my reason, then please, school me on how to properly use my reason (or lack thereof according to you).

Well, at least we agree that there are differences and you have no proof.

None of them are eye-witness testimony, sorry. The four Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

I've stated, very plainly, the differences in the four Gospels about this one single event. I will not restate point by point. I do appreciate your ability to explain the difference in Greenwich Mean Time for biblical occurences and your dismissal of the facts that people are either present, or not, or tombs open or closed as not what you consider evidence of a contradiction. You extrapolate and expound on details NOT there by implication, speculation what appears to be plain wishful thinking. I foresee that if Matthew said Jesus was a tall red haired man and John said he was a short dark haired man, you would explain how Matthew was much shorter than John and that John was colorblind.

There is no extra biblical evidence for this event outside the four biblical Gospels. Since this "testimony" so obviously contradicts itself (and that this testimonial evidence is all you have) there is no case.

My original response was to your assertion that the Bible was "the most accurate book ever". It is not. It is not validated outside of itself, there are multiple translations and obvious changes from the earliest manuscripts to the current interpretations. It is not historically or scientifically accurate by any stretch of imagination or apologetics. All that is left is your belief in its accuracy.

Christianity is not the oldest religion nor is the Bible the oldest written story . If it were the oldest or possessed the oldest manuscript it would not make it true. Age is no guarantee of authority. What makes your faith any more real or true than the faith of a Muslim or Hindu? Nothing. People of faith have absolutely no problem evaluating the reasonableness or efficacy of any religious book or faith but their own. Let's say that instead of pulling my invisible dragon example "out of my butt", I say believe in Humbaba who was killed by Gilgamesh which is an older story than the oldest story in the old testament. This does not make it true.

When you don't have the answer for a "why" question, "magic" is not the answer. It does not take faith to believe that if I jump off a high point I will fall or if I fall into a lake I will get wet. There is empirical evidence for those and a myriad of other experiences in this life. There is NO evidence for anything that allegedly occurs in the next life or even if there is a next life.

My purpose was not to bash christianity, or your faith, but that is the direction you pulled this conversation. It certainly isn't difficult, but it is pointless.

I do see your points but if the four books was not written by Matthew, Mark, luke and John who wrote them? I do believe and know the bible has been modified from the original version, in your opion who created the original version? I'm not arguing your thoughts everyone has their own but I'm curious as to where you think all this orginated from if the event /stories told in the bible are not real wow someone has a mad genious of an imagination lol know what I mean :) ? Actually awhile back there was a book found in a cave that was supposely the first orginal bible ( the four books) .. I will have to look for the article we studied about it in my humanities class last year it was pretty interesting . It is hard for a lot of people to believe the things that I believe but I do still have a lot of faith, my faith is stemmed from answered prayers " miracles" that have taken place in my life throughout the years. These particular types of events are hard to explain to someone from the outside looking in and what I mean by that someone that is skeptical that God made things happen in my life etc... I have prayed for specific things to take place in my life and honestly I have never prayed a prayer that has not come true...makes me believe that a higher power does exist.... things that I could not make happen on my own how is this explained or even possible?, I'm not attempting to persaude your own beliefs each to his own but without my belief in God and my faith my life would be nothing but a shell.... My personal thoughts..

In Life we should experience an adventure that will create a memory worth repeating.....unknown.....

I'm not going to get into a crusade over this. I'll simply answer the origional question. Only the Father knows the day judgement will come. It will be like a thief in the night. I'll keep watch like a servant waiting for his master to return.

Somewhere a true believer is training with one goal in mind...to kill you...will you be ready when you meet?

The comments in this statement in no way reflect to opinions or official standing of any agency, person, or entity other than the person who posted it. In other words mind your own business.

Okay here it is black and white for you. The Bible was written many years ago by people that God chose to write it. The four gospels were written my the original people. You can say all you want about whatever you want about the Bible. We have faith in the Lord that the Bible is written without error. All the stories and parables and psalms and proverbs and the death, buriel and resurrection were written by people who witnessed it. The Lord would not allow false information to be written down for many generations to read it. Jesus carried his cross, he had help carrying his cross, Jesus was nailed to the cross. He died on the cross. He was buried and rose again on the 3rd day. That is what we believe and have faith in. We do not need to sit here and prove anything to you. It is what happened, believe it or not, your choice. But just remember this, we will all go before Jesus Christ one day to give an account of our lives. All I can say is good works and being nice will not get you into heaven. Only way to heaven is through the Jesus Christ and I hop one day that you understand what we are saying.

You wouldn't go in there for a million bucks...A Cop does it for less...A Reserve does it for free....

If Matthew says Mary was there, and Marks says Mary was NOT there, then THAT is a contradiction. Not mentioning she was there is not a contradiction. That is a fallacy completely fabricated in your own mind. As I stated before, one gospel mentions one detail, another mentions a different one. You see these as contradictions...

I implore you to check out the Principle of Contradiction. Don't worry! It was written by Aristotle so I have no doubt you will be willing to accept it as truth. You need to re-evaluate your definition of a contradiction. Use an outside, non-religious source.

I'm sorry, I misspoke in my original post. What is should have said was "the most historically accurate book" You took that to mean that what it says is true, I'm talking about what it says is actually what was written down. The original purpose was to show that historically the thousands of manuscripts have been in agreeance, contrary to thought that it has been changed and changed and changed. Please, indulge me on an ancient document with more copies with such a high agreeance rate. I'd love to hear it.

I'm not going to get into why my faith is true and others are not. You don't care anyway. You don't know me. You don't know where I've been, yet you judge me based on your own personal stereotypes. That's alright. It just shows how much knowledge you lack about true Christians.

I have no magical answers. But I want to hear one... Tell me please..How did the universe create itself out of nothing? Don't respond to me again until you can answer that question. I answered yours.

And yes your purpose was to bash Christianity and my faith. Maybe it was not intentional, but I was not talking to you, and you felt the need to say something. You neither brought any evidence to the table, only comments backed up by your own mind. And you attacked my intelligence and my reason. I guess you didn't expect a dumb Christian like me to notice that.

My heart goes out for you dude. Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.

The four gospels of the New Testament kind sir(Mr.Dayngerus) were written to portray how different decilpes saw Jesus.As I learned in seminary.One saw him as a common man,one as a King of Kings,one as a healer and one,as a law giver.As a fellow leo you probably ,as I have, investigated multiple car collisions.Let's speculate that you found some eight wittnesses to said collision.I can assure you sir that you will discover eight varied stories.Does that necessarily mean seven are lieing>?No,not at all,it simply shows that the eight all wittnessed different aspects of said collision.As an ordained Baptist minister I can sit here at my machine all day and cite verses,parables,etc.till I'm blue in the face,but doubt that that would benefit you if you cannot decern what the biblical teachings are all about.You breatrh air,don't you? In essence you have faith that it is there,although you cannot see it.I opt to believe in the Holy Trinity aklthough I cannot see it.You contrinue to call for evidence.You most certainly will experience said evidence on judgement day.I firmly believe your soul is worth saving,obviously you don't.

since everyone is getting all theological I pose this question. If you are not a christian can you still get into heaven? I believe the christians will say no. Then how can this be? What happened to all the people who lived on the earth before christ? And again other religions believe whatever it is, hindu, jewish, or whatever. These other faiths believe they are correct. So how do you, as a christion, #1 know your beliefs are the right beliefs? #2 What happened to the people before christianity? I have always been fasinated with the staunch beliefs of religions.

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

since everyone is getting all theological I pose this question. If you are not a christian can you still get into heaven? I believe the christians will say no. Then how can this be? What happened to all the people who lived on the earth before christ? And again other religions believe whatever it is, hindu, jewish, or whatever. These other faiths believe they are correct. So how do you, as a christion, #1 know your beliefs are the right beliefs? #2 What happened to the people before christianity? I have always been fasinated with the staunch beliefs of religions.

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

Well as a Christian I will try to answer your question. The Christian faith is unique. Name another religion where a person claimed to be God, performed miracles to back it up, and died for the sins of the world. The Christian faith is a by grace faith. We cannot earn heaven, it is a gift. Every other religion you have to try to be good enough. That is what makes the Christian faith unique. Jesus also claimed he was the only way to God. His statement was either true, or false. Either he IS the ONLY way, or he isnt the way at all.

People before Christ went to heaven. Elijah was taken up in a chariot. Enoch was taken into heaven. Abraham is in heaven. The common demonimaor between the Jews and the Christians is and always will be YHWH. God. As gentiles we had no access to God. The Jewish priests did. Christ died to change all of that. To free the Jews from the law and allow access to God for the gentiles.

It has never been about being a "Christian"

Acts 16:30-31 Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said,"Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."

To believe in Jesus is to believe in God himself. To reject Jesus is to reject God himself.

since everyone is getting all theological I pose this question. If you are not a christian can you still get into heaven? I believe the christians will say no. Then how can this be? What happened to all the people who lived on the earth before christ? And again other religions believe whatever it is, hindu, jewish, or whatever. These other faiths believe they are correct. So how do you, as a christion, #1 know your beliefs are the right beliefs? #2 What happened to the people before christianity? I have always been fasinated with the staunch beliefs of religions.

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

I've actually never thought about that before, but it does make you think. I think Rufus in the movie Dogma said it best, "It's not what you believe in, it's THAT you believe that matters."

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

May I also ask a q? If there is a higher being who is the source of all morality and ethics, who is perfect and completely holy, who created us, gave us life, and clothed us in his majesty, would it offend him if you worshipped a completely false God?

Would somebody who spent their life working at Ford, drive home in a brand new Ford truck and get offended if someone said "Man, look at that nice Chevy you made."??

I believe our bodies,brains,spirit and soul are a well thought out miracle a of a supreme being.I am NOT evolved from an ape,a seeweed ,a squid or any of the rediculous ideas put forth by the so called psudo intellectuals.This is about as brilliant as the Big Bang theory.BY just being a cool dude or a good gal will not win you a free trip to Heaven."It is a gift of God,not of works,lest any man should boast"."If you deny God,he will deny you in the last day".Go ahead and give it a try,see how it works out for you,don't believe me.I'm not about to test his word.

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

May I also ask a q? If there is a higher being who is the source of all morality and ethics, who is perfect and completely holy, who created us, gave us life, and clothed us in his majesty, would it offend him if you worshipped a completely false God?

Would somebody who spent their life working at Ford, drive home in a brand new Ford truck and get offended if someone said "Man, look at that nice Chevy you made."??

To your question about worshiping the right god I'm not sure what you are asking. I don't believe that you NEED to worship any god to get into heaven. You believe what you believe, and others believe what they believe. How do you KNOW your beliefs are the correct one. Because the bible says so?

I do believe there is a higher being. I believe in god. I just don't believe in religion per se. I don't think you need to worship to get into heaven. I think your life will dictate your hereafter (if there is one). From your earlier post let me ask. Do you believe there is a hell? If so then what is the deciding factor? The fact that your are a christian? If that is the case then the MAJORITY of the people who ever lived will go to hell. If that is not the deciding factor What is?

As far as you Ford or Chevy quetions, no I would not get offended. The fact that my neighbor paid me a complement would be appreciated. The fact that he was ignorant as to the make of my vehicle would not affect my appreciation.

I would like to add. This is an interesting discussion. I am in no way trying to diminish your beliefs.

I believe that if you want to get into heaven, you have to play by the rules of the one who created it.

I think the problem here is relative truth. What's true for you is true for you, and what's true for me is true for me. Right? but what if my truth says your truth is a lie..is your truth still true? Christianity says there is only one God. Either that is true, or false. False could mean there is no god, or there are several gods, Christianity doesn't have the true god..ect. But it cannot be both true and false.

How do I know my beliefs are the correct ones? Simple faith. Not only what the bible says, but I've experience God's power in my own life. Nobody can dispute that. You can say it's my imagination. Either I've experience God's power in my own life, or I haven't. I say I have. Some say I haven't because they never have.

Yes I believe in Hell. The deciding factor will be whether or not you have received the free gift of salvation. But this gift comes with strings attached.

I think someone who spent their life working at a Ford factory, taking pride in their work may get offended. maybe not. I dunno.

since everyone is getting all theological I pose this question. If you are not a christian can you still get into heaven? I believe the christians will say no. Then how can this be? What happened to all the people who lived on the earth before christ? And again other religions believe whatever it is, hindu, jewish, or whatever. These other faiths believe they are correct. So how do you, as a christion, #1 know your beliefs are the right beliefs? #2 What happened to the people before christianity? I have always been fasinated with the staunch beliefs of religions.

I believe that if heaven actually exists ( I'm not so sure) how you live your life will be the test of admittance and your religious beliefes are of no consequence.

Yes that is true, if you do not believe and have faith that Jesus Christ died on the cross at Calvary, was buried in a tomb, and arose again on the 3rd day that you will not get into heaven, as well as believeing that you are a sinner and that Christ paid for sins on that cross. The people who lived on the earth before Christ still had the option of believing in Him and going to heaven. Those that didn't went to hell. I believe that Noah and his family tried to reach the people. Those that reject the Lord will not enter into heaven. The problem with other religions is that you have to "do" something to get into heaven. You have to be good, do good deeds, believe in false gods. That is all wrong, the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the only God and that the only way to heaven is through him.

Heaven really does exist brother, I hate for you to find out the hard way. God does not look over your life and say your good out ways your bad so you can enter heaven.

Please go read John chapter 3. And also go read this website.

http://www.chick.com/information/general/salvation.asp

You wouldn't go in there for a million bucks...A Cop does it for less...A Reserve does it for free....

If Matthew says Mary was there, and Marks says Mary was NOT there, then THAT is a contradiction. Not mentioning she was there is not a contradiction. That is a fallacy completely fabricated in your own mind. As I stated before, one gospel mentions one detail, another mentions a different one. You see these as contradictions...

I implore you to check out the Principle of Contradiction. Don't worry! It was written by Aristotle so I have no doubt you will be willing to accept it as truth. You need to re-evaluate your definition of a contradiction. Use an outside, non-religious source.

I'm sorry, I misspoke in my original post. What is should have said was "the most historically accurate book" You took that to mean that what it says is true, I'm talking about what it says is actually what was written down. The original purpose was to show that historically the thousands of manuscripts have been in agreeance, contrary to thought that it has been changed and changed and changed. Please, indulge me on an ancient document with more copies with such a high agreeance rate. I'd love to hear it.

I'm not going to get into why my faith is true and others are not. You don't care anyway. You don't know me. You don't know where I've been, yet you judge me based on your own personal stereotypes. That's alright. It just shows how much knowledge you lack about true Christians.

I have no magical answers. But I want to hear one... Tell me please..How did the universe create itself out of nothing? Don't respond to me again until you can answer that question. I answered yours.

And yes your purpose was to bash Christianity and my faith. Maybe it was not intentional, but I was not talking to you, and you felt the need to say something. You neither brought any evidence to the table, only comments backed up by your own mind. And you attacked my intelligence and my reason. I guess you didn't expect a dumb Christian like me to notice that.

My heart goes out for you dude. Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord GOD; so turn, and live.

I was not there when they were written, obviously. Of course, neither were you. Yet you will insist of course that these are the unaltered words of these same four men at the behest and inspiration of a mistical being without one shred of evidence to support either. As reported, Mary was the only common denominator between the four gospels, the others were said to be there or not there. The stone was closed or rolled away. One or more, men or angels were present. These are contradictions. Your additions and assertions, including a very interesting display of christian time-keeping, to keep the text flowing is entertaining however.

Let's pretend for a moment that this fantastical tale happened, and that the four alleged authors actually wrote these four documents. None of the four write that they were present when this happened. They do not write that they saw this with their own eyes. They are NOT eye witnesses to this. This was relayed to them by someone else. (apparently Mary Magdalene and WHOEVER was or was not with her at the time). Despite this, you assert that occurred as reported. So your answer is: magic.

Textual criticisms of the Bible, particularly the New Testament are beyond my training and experience. But the contradictory treatment of this single event by the four writers, the details of which one would justifiably expect to be in 100 percent agreement given its importance to christian dogma, that one is required to believe or risk damnation, leaves any intelligent person reasonably skeptical.

You are wrong in saying that I do not care. I care a great deal about what is, or is not, true. You gave an interesting turn of phrase by saying that I lack knowledge of "true christians". There are roughly hundreds of different versions of christianity, some who use the same translations of the Bible, who cannot agree on the meaning of the text. For two thousand years, there has been argument and debate, most often at the point of a sword and resulting in the death of one or more of the dissenters and certainly more than a few deaths of "heathens." I can now feel a great swelling of pride to be able to say that I have met the first "true" christian.

You create an argument where none existed with your assertion that I believe the "universe created itself". I looked over my writings and could find no reference of mine to any origin of the universe. If you are interested in my opinion, I freely admit I do not know.

Since you will not allow me to refrain from commenting on christianity in particular. There is no evidence to support the claim of anything from the virgin birth myth (a barbaric idea wherein god impregnated a female child without her knowledge or consent, we call that "rape) to the assention and return of the mythical christ. (So awesome in its presence and implication that it wasn't recorded anywhere in the ancient world except the Bible). There is no extra-biblical record of any of the incidents (i.e. myths) that form the underpinings of this theology. As I said, I do care what is true. I do not care whether or not you believe this or any other of hundreds of religious myths or whether you believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

We can get beyond all of this need for evidence argument if you prefer. I will be glad to contact you during the course of my next death investigation and, if you are willing, you may come and bring the poor individual back to life. I'm certain they and their family would appreciate it. I'll even settle for the restoration of a missing limb on the amputee of your choosing. I would ask that you jog atop the nearest body of water, but I believe I already saw that performed by either Chris Angel or David Blaine.(I can't remember which)

From a biblical prespective, which seems to be much discussed in this thread, several things happen before the end of the world, none of which have happened yet. The anti-Christ appears ( mistaken by many for the 2nd coming of Christ) and he will unite the world's religeons. the temple of Solomon will be rebuild. Since neither of these has occured, the end of the world is still a ways away, i don't even know if we are approaching/in the end times or not, but there is too much to occur for the world as we know it to end in 2012. JMO